Cited by 109Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesHead and Neck Cancer StudiesSmoking Behavior and Cessation

Smoking and the Risk of Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Leonardi-Bee, Jo, Ellison, Thomas, Bath-Hextall, Fiona·2012·Archives of Dermatology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to collate evidence of the effects of smoking on the risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer. DATA SOURCES: We searched 4 electronic databases (from inception to October 2010) and scanned the reference lists of the publications retrieved to identify eligible comparative epidemiologic studies. STUDY SELECTION: Titles, abstracts, and full text were assessed independently by 2 authors against prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted and quality was assessed independently by 2 authors using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. DATA SYNTHESIS: Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models. Results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2. Twenty-five studies were included. Smoking was significantly associated with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.15-2.01; I2 = 64%; 6 studies). Smoking was not significantly associated with basal cell carcinoma (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82-1.09; I2 = 59%; 14 studies) or nonmelanoma skin cancer (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.21-1.79; I2 = 34%; 2 studies). CONCLUSION: This study clearly demonstrates that smoking increases the risk of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma; however, smoking does not appear to modify the risk of basal cell carcinoma.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archdermatol.2012.1374

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A meta-analysis showed that smoking was associated with SCC, whose main risk factor is UV exposure.

    “Moreover, a meta‐analysis58 showed that smoking was associated with SCC, whose main risk factor is UV exposure.59”

    From The impact of airborne pollution on skin (2019) · cites this paper as [58]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leonardi-Bee, J., Ellison, T., & Bath-Hextall, F.
Venue
Archives of Dermatology
Published
2012-08-01
Volume
148
Issue
8
Pages
939-46
ISSN
0003-987X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2013980032
Cited by
109
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 4
FWCI
4.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • British Heart Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Head and Neck Cancer Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
Keywords
smoking, non-melanoma skin cancer, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, cancer risk, tobacco use
MeSH terms
Basal Cell Carcinoma, Carcinoma, Squamous Cell, Humans, Skin Neoplasms, Smoking, Confidence Intervals, Odds Ratio

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review